Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2014 January 9

< January 8	January 10 >

January 9[edit]

File:Bathymetric Phewa.jpg[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Stifle (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 19:17, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is a derivative work from a sign installed in Pokhara, Nepal [1]. Unfortunately there is no freedom of panorama in Nepal (compare Commons:Freedom of panorama), so the original Flickr photo itself is a copyvio. De728631 (talk) 09:54, 9 January 2014 (UTC) De728631 (talk) 09:54, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Dr. Jose N. Gandara from Ponce, Puerto Rico.jpg[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 12:21, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid the flickr uploader is unlikely to be the copyright holder of this picture, and is in no grounds to release it under a free license. damiens.rf 11:40, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

While a non-free image of this man could be accepted (since he's no longer alive), we need to know where the picture comes from. This may be a photo from a photo agency, and our use would no be a fair use in this case. --damiens.rf 11:42, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. This looks like it was scanned from an old newspaper. De728631 (talk) 12:35, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I too would had thought it might come from a newspaper, but a newspaper photo from the 1950s (the decade based on the subject's apparent age) would have little dots all over the photo; all I see is his jacket with stripes, not the entire photo. In addition I notice there is what seems to be a piece of an oval photo album picture holder over the top left corner. The CR holder seems to have just taken a photo of his photo rather than risk damage to his old picture by taking it off the album or worse yet risk damage by jamming his original photo in a scanner. Mercy11 (talk) 16:08, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Having looked at the flickr photostream this is sourced from, it appears to be one of three taken from an unidentified book or magazine. With appropriate sourcing information, this would likely qualify as acceptable nonfree content -- but as it stands, it's just an uncceptable flickrwashed image. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:53, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It does not appear to be a newspaper photo.Nelsondenis248 (talk) 12:19, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looking at the images next to this one at [2], it seems that the person has been at a museum or something and that he has taken photos of paintings and other things. Those photos are derivative works of creations by other people. We need permission from the other people, unless it can be shown that the underlying image (currently of unknown source) is in the public domain for some reason. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:42, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The image is published CC-BY-SA, not as PD as you appear to be implying. But even if we were to make the museum assumption, we could assume the museum itself published it CC-BY-SA - because the assumption could go either way, right? I mean, isn't the important thing here that image is published as CC-BY-SA and, thus, the publisher takes responsibility of any CRV and not us? Mercy11 (talk) 14:08, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, we are responsible for not disseminating possible copyright violations. That is why Wikipedia (and Commons) does not accept derivative copyvios. De728631 (talk) 16:08, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As I remember reading that argument is valid under the FU policy, but here we have an image that's published as permissble to copy. Did I err somewhere? Mercy11 (talk) 23:01, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. That's just wrong. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 00:22, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, probable flickrwashing. ✄ (talk) 10:21, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Flag of the Ministry of Defence.png[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Stifle (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 19:17, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There's no such thing as the "Flag of the Ministry of Defence". The MOD has no flag. This is an alternative version of file:Flag of the Joint Services.png. Since it's non-free, and has no use, I think it should be deleted. Rob (talk | contribs) 16:58, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be arguing about the name. The description tells us this is for defense intelligence. Also it is in use, so that invalidates both of the arguments. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:25, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Seems like there's some disagreement about this. The file has been removed from the article about the MOD and it's not being used in Defence Intelligence for which it has a rationale. De728631 (talk) 12:15, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:OnceUponATimeCast.jpg[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Stifle (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 19:17, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Three non-free pictures of the cast is too much. I decided to leave the season two picture because it has the best clarity. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:54, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:OnceUponATimeS3Promo.jpg[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Stifle (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 19:17, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Three non-free pictures of the cast is too much. I decided to leave the season two picture because it has the best clarity. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:54, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:2016 US Senate Election seats.png[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Stifle (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 19:17, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is a raster image. A vector version of this map exists on commons at File:2016 Senate election map.svg.

As a raster map, this file will accumulate wrong‐coloured jaggies as users, who do not have a local copy of the original file, or who do not begin with a blank map, make updates. The vector map is text‐editable and was migrated to commons. The raster version should be deleted. ― Info por favor (talk | contribs) 21:07, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No objection here. Orser67 (talk) 17:57, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.